On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 07:42:25AM -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote: > 2011/1/24 Ralf Wildenhues <ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> > > > Hello Sergio, > > > > * Sergio Belkin wrote on Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:13:16PM CET: > > > I've found great the option "-no-install". But I wonder if is there a > > > way to build directly the executables files, I mean that don't create > > > object file "something.o" and only do something.o > > > > You mean creating an executable directly from source file(s)? > > No, Automake doesn't really support that. You can try to write > > a rule that passes foo.c to 'libtool --mode=link', but since we > > don't test that I'm guessing that it won't work reliably. > > > > What's the point of this anyway? AFAIK the only thing you save > > by omitting the object file is one fork&exec of the compiler driver, > > which is often negligible compared with the actual work the compiler > > and linker do. You can 'make mostlyclean' to remove object files > > you don't need again afterwards. > > > > Cheers, > > Ralf > > > > Sorry, I was no clear enough > > Let's say that you have a library libfoo.so and you have on build tree a > source file fred.c. You've created a test target that creat (with > -no-install flag) the ELF executable fred (note that has no extension). > But libtool create also fred.o "an ELF relocatable", is there a way that > libtool create only the "ELF excutable"? What is the advantage of create an > "intermediate file"? Please correct me if I have a wrong concept. >
I think it's a quite seldom case to do so, but as simple as you call the gcc link stage directly you can combine the libtool stages: GCC: gcc -o test test.c LIBTOOL: libtool --mode=link --tag=CC gcc -o test test.c bye ingo _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
